Dataset Information

Implementation of Patient Engagement Tools in Electronic Health Records to Enhance Patient-Centered Communication: Protocol for Feasibility Evaluation and Preliminary Results.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Patient-physician communication during clinical encounters is essential to ensure quality of care. Many studies have attempted to improve patient-physician communication. Incorporating patient priorities into agenda setting and medical decision-making are fundamental to patient-centered communication. Efficient and scalable approaches are needed to empower patients to speak up and prepare physicians to respond. Leveraging electronic health records (EHRs) in engaging patients and health care teams has the potential to enhance the integration of patient priorities in clinical encounters. A systematic approach to eliciting and documenting patient priorities before encounters could facilitate effective communication in such encounters.

Objective

In this paper, we report the design and implementation of a set of EHR tools built into clinical workflows for facilitating patient-physician joint agenda setting and the documentation of patient concerns in the EHRs for ambulatory encounters.

Methods

We engaged health information technology leaders and users in three health care systems for developing and implementing a set of EHR tools. The goal of these tools is to standardize the elicitation of patient priorities by using a previsit "patient important issue" questionnaire distributed through the patient portal to the EHR. We built additional EHR documentation tools to facilitate patient-staff communication when the staff records the vital signs and the reason for the visit in the EHR while in the examination room, with a simple transmission method for physicians to incorporate patient concerns in EHR notes.

Results

The study is ongoing. The anticipated completion date for survey data collection is November 2021. A total of 34,037 primary care patients from three health systems (n=26,441; n=5136; and n=2460 separately recruited from each system) used the previsit patient important issue questionnaire in 2020. The adoption of the digital previsit questionnaire during the COVID-19 pandemic was much higher in one health care system because it expanded the use of the questionnaire from physicians participating in trials to all primary care providers midway through the year. It also required the use of this previsit questionnaire for eCheck-ins, which are required for telehealth encounters. Physicians and staff suggested anecdotally that this questionnaire helped patient-clinician communication, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Conclusions

EHR tools have the potential to facilitate the integration of patient priorities into agenda setting and documentation in real-world primary care practices. Early results suggest the feasibility and acceptability of such digital tools in three health systems. EHR tools can support patient engagement and clinicians' work during in-person and telehealth visits. They could potentially exert a sustained influence on patient and clinician communication behaviors in contrast to prior ad hoc educational efforts targeting patients or clinicians.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03385512; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03385512.

International registered report identifier (irrid)

DERR1-10.2196/30431.

SUBMITTER: Tai-Seale M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8430844 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality's (AHRQ) Patient-Centered Outcomes Research (PCOR) Dissemination and Implementation (D&I) Initiative identifies and prioritizes PCOR findings that could improve health care if widely implemented. To inform PCOR implementation investments, AHRQ sought to assess feasibility of widely implementing impactful PCOR findings with good strength of evidence in clinical practice.ObjectiveTo develop criteria to assess the feasibility of widely implementing nominated PCOR findings.MethodsWe reviewed literature and interviewed thirteen D&I experts to identify factors affecting feasibility of implementing PCOR findings. We grouped similar factors into themes. Fourteen technical expert panel (TEP) members discussed the face-validity and relative merits of the themes and additional factors, applied themes to fictional case studies, and prioritized themes for assessing feasibility. We developed criteria and guiding questions with a 3-point Likert scale. Seven D&I experts pilot-tested the criteria using sample nominations of PCOR findings. Experts represented diverse views of implementation from federal and state government agencies, research institutions, and quality improvement and advocacy organizations.Key resultsWe developed a set of three essential criteria for AHRQ to assess feasibility of widely implementing PCOR findings to be widely implementable: (1) acceptability to the implementers; (2) generalizability, adaptability, and ease of implementing with fidelity; and (3) alignment with external policies and incentives. Two supplemental criteria, (1) the presence of a plan or toolkit supporting implementation, or (2) evidence supporting implementation outside the research setting, can enhance reviewers' confidence in the intervention's feasibility. Each criterion includes "guiding questions" to parse out specific components that could be more readily assessed.ConclusionsThe criteria and guiding questions are a valuable tool for informing AHRQ's investment decisions regarding implementing PCOR findings. Although developed for AHRQ's needs, the criteria may help other funders and health care organizations determine the feasibility of implementing evidence-based practices.

Project description:OBJECTIVE:Sexual concerns are often unaddressed for breast cancer patients; one reason is inadequate clinician training. We examined the feasibility, acceptability, and potential benefits of a novel intervention, improving Sexual Health and Augmenting Relationships through Education (iSHARE) for breast cancer clinicians. METHODS:Clinicians received training in communicating about sexual concerns with breast cancer patients. Intervention feasibility and acceptability were measured through enrollment/participation and postintervention program evaluations, respectively. Intervention effects were assessed through (1) clinician self-reported beliefs about sexual health communication, assessed at baseline, post-intervention, and 1- or 6-month follow-up, (2) clinical communication coded from audio recorded, transcribed clinic encounters at preintervention or postintervention, and (3) patient satisfaction with clinical care, reported immediately after the clinic visit. Patients also reported sociodemographic characteristics and level of sexual concerns. RESULTS:Seven breast cancer clinicians enrolled (88% participation), completed the intervention, and were audio recorded in clinic encounters with 134 breast cancer outpatients (67 each at preintervention or postintervention). Program evaluations supported intervention acceptability. Effect sizes suggest iSHARE increased clinicians' self-efficacy (d = 0.27) and outcome expectancies for communicating about sexual concerns (d = 0.69) and reduced communication barriers (d = -0.14). Clinicians' sexual health communication behaviors increased from baseline to postintervention, including for raising the topic (28% vs 48%), asking questions (33% vs 45%), and offering information (18% vs 24%). Neither patient satisfaction nor duration of sexual health communication changed (mean duration less than 1 minute at both time points). CONCLUSIONS:The iSHARE intervention was feasible and well received by clinicians and may change breast cancer clinicians' beliefs and communication behaviors regarding sexual health.

Project description:ObjectiveTo determine whether medical errors, family experience, and communication processes improved after implementation of an intervention to standardize the structure of healthcare provider-family communication on family centered rounds.DesignProspective, multicenter before and after intervention study.SettingPediatric inpatient units in seven North American hospitals, 17 December 2014 to 3 January 2017.ParticipantsAll patients admitted to study units (3106 admissions, 13171 patient days); 2148 parents or caregivers, 435 nurses, 203 medical students, and 586 residents.InterventionFamilies, nurses, and physicians coproduced an intervention to standardize healthcare provider-family communication on ward rounds ("family centered rounds"), which included structured, high reliability communication on bedside rounds emphasizing health literacy, family engagement, and bidirectional communication; structured, written real-time summaries of rounds; a formal training programme for healthcare providers; and strategies to support teamwork, implementation, and process improvement.Main outcome measuresMedical errors (primary outcome), including harmful errors (preventable adverse events) and non-harmful errors, modeled using Poisson regression and generalized estimating equations clustered by site; family experience; and communication processes (eg, family engagement on rounds). Errors were measured via an established systematic surveillance methodology including family safety reporting.ResultsThe overall rate of medical errors (per 1000 patient days) was unchanged (41.2 (95% confidence interval 31.2 to 54.5) pre-intervention v 35.8 (26.9 to 47.7) post-intervention, P=0.21), but harmful errors (preventable adverse events) decreased by 37.9% (20.7 (15.3 to 28.1) v 12.9 (8.9 to 18.6), P=0.01) post-intervention. Non-preventable adverse events also decreased (12.6 (8.9 to 17.9) v 5.2 (3.1 to 8.8), P=0.003). Top box (eg, "excellent") ratings for six of 25 components of family reported experience improved; none worsened. Family centered rounds occurred more frequently (72.2% (53.5% to 85.4%) v 82.8% (64.9% to 92.6%), P=0.02). Family engagement 55.6% (32.9% to 76.2%) v 66.7% (43.0% to 84.1%), P=0.04) and nurse engagement (20.4% (7.0% to 46.6%) v 35.5% (17.0% to 59.6%), P=0.03) on rounds improved. Families expressing concerns at the start of rounds (18.2% (5.6% to 45.3%) v 37.7% (17.6% to 63.3%), P=0.03) and reading back plans (4.7% (0.7% to 25.2%) v 26.5% (12.7% to 7.3%), P=0.02) increased. Trainee teaching and the duration of rounds did not change significantly.ConclusionsAlthough overall errors were unchanged, harmful medical errors decreased and family experience and communication processes improved after implementation of a structured communication intervention for family centered rounds coproduced by families, nurses, and physicians. Family centered care processes may improve safety and quality of care without negatively impacting teaching or duration of rounds.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT02320175.

Project description:Electronic health record (EHR) use can enhance or undermine the ability of providers to deliver effective, humanistic patient-centered care. Given patient-centered care has been found to positively impact patient health outcomes, it is critical to provide formal education on patient-centered EHR communication skills. Unfortunately, despite increasing worldwide EHR adoption, few institutions educate trainees on EHR communication best practices.The goal of this research was to develop and deliver mandatory patient-centered EHR training to all incoming housestaff at the University of Chicago.We developed a brief patient-centered EHR use curriculum highlighting best practices based on a literature search. Training was embedded into required EHR onboarding for all incoming housestaff (interns, residents, and fellows) at the University of Chicago in 2015 and was delivered by institutional Clinical Applications Trainers. An 11-item posttraining survey consisting of ten 5-point Likert scale questions and 1 open-ended question was administered. Responses at the high end of the scale were grouped to dichotomize data.All 158 of the incoming 2015 postgraduate trainees participated in training and completed surveys (158/158, 100.0%). Just over half (86/158, 54.4%) were interns and the remaining were residents and fellows (72/158, 45.6%). One-fifth of respondents (32/158, 20.2%) were primary care trainees (defined as internal medicine, pediatric, and medicine-pediatric trainees), and the remaining 79.7% (126/158) were surgical or specialty trainees. Self-perceived pre- versus posttraining knowledge of barriers, best practices, and ability to implement patient-centered EHR skills significantly increased (3.1 vs 3.9, P<.001 for all). Most felt training was effective (90.5%), should be required (86.7%), and would change future practice as a result (70.9%). The only significant difference between intern and resident/fellow responses was prior knowledge of patient-centered EHR use barriers; interns endorsed higher prior knowledge than resident peers (3.27 vs 2.94 respectively, P=.03). Response comparison of specialty or surgical trainees (n=126) to primary care trainees (n=32) showed no significant differences in prior knowledge of barriers (3.09 vs 3.22, P=.50), of best practices (3.08 vs 2.94, P=.37), or prior ability to implement best practices (3.11 vs 2.84, P=.15). Primary care trainees had larger increases posttraining than surgical/specialty peers in knowledge of barriers (0.8 vs 0.7, P=.62), best practices (1.1 vs 0.8, P=.08), and ability to implement best practices (1.1 vs 0.7, P=.07), although none reached statistical significance. Primary care trainees also rated training as more effective (4.34 vs 4.09, P=.03) and felt training should be required (4.34 vs 4.09, P=.10) and would change their future practice as a result (4.13 vs 3.73, P=.02).Embedding EHR communication skills training into required institutional EHR training is a novel and effective way to teach key EHR skills to trainees. Such training may help ground trainees in best practices and contribute to cultivating an institutional culture of humanistic, patient-centered EHR use.

Project description:Introduction/objectivesThe engagement of patients and other stakeholders is a critical element in the design of patient-centered outcomes research studies. However, methodology for scalable engagement in research management particularly activities such as operationalization of principles and setting of priorities is not well-developed. The objective of this study is to describe a novel approach for scalable stakeholder engagement in research aligned with the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) engagement principles, which was evaluated in a national clinical data research network.Materials and methodsPatient, patient advocate, clinician, and researcher stakeholders were recruited from clinical sites, as well as social media sites related to the 3 conditions of focus, heart failure, obesity, and Kawasaki disease. The engagement strategy was designed, implemented, and mapped to the PCORI engagement principles. Evaluation included internal assessment and quantitative measures of online engagement.ResultsWe operationalized the PCORI principles with 12 stakeholder engagement strategies and convened stakeholder advisory boards and online research prioritization panels to determine research priorities in a rigorous, deliberative process. A total of 46 advisors (20 patients) and 339 panelists (159 patients) actively participated. There were not significant differences between patients and clinicians in level of online engagement. Nonetheless, while patients reported a slightly greater challenge with following online discussion, they overall had a more favorable opinion about use of the online format.Discussion/conclusionAn efficient way to engage large numbers of representative stakeholders in research is a necessary first step to assure the public of trustworthy use of data networks for health research. This paper describes a comprehensive approach to engagement in patient-centered outcomes research management that informs ongoing development of rigorous methodologies in this area.